[flagged]
For instance, Indiana locked up an anti-war protestor:
>The case involved an antiwar protest on the campus of Indiana University Bloomington. Between 100 and 150 protesters were in the streets. The sheriff and his deputies then proceeded to clear the streets of the protestors. As the sheriff was passing Gregory Hess, one of the members of the crowd, Hess uttered, "We'll take the fucking street later" or "We'll take the fucking street again." Hess was convicted in Indiana state court of disorderly conduct.
The Supreme Court reversed Hess's conviction because Hess' statement, at worst, "amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time."
In addition, Hess' speech was not directed at any particular person or group. As a result, "it cannot be said that he was advocating, in the normal sense, any action."
Secondly, your personal ethics are absolutely relevant because ethics advances by persuasion in rational debate. Everyone's views on such matters are relevant, if not persuasive.
1. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/us/dorian-abbot-mit.html
2. Sometimes people will try to argue for an indirect threat of violence. E.g. that opposing trans men in female sports amounts to a call of violence because it reduces respect for trans people, which in turn increases likelihood of violence perpetrated against them. But this is a very indirect relationship. As a general rule of thumb, if someone is making a claim that some speech is probabilistically increasing violence, it's not a incitement to violence.
On a side note, since it seems to be the question of our era, what do you think the appropriate sports league for trans men would look like?
What I think is going to inevitably happen in sports is that the gender segregated (but not sex segregated) women's leagues will become dominated by trans women, and cis women will leave and form their own female-only league.
It came close to this in a British cycling race back in March: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/mar/30/trans-cyclist-...
"The UCI's decision came amid a growing backlash from within the sport, with the Guardian understanding that a number of female riders were talking about boycotting the event in Derby because they felt that Bridges, who was on the Great Britain Academy programme as a male rider until being dropped in 2020, had an unfair advantage."
Yes, but Americans often don’t like them very much. In Germany, we routinely punish people for wanting to forcibly overthrow our government.
Easy. Speech that is hurtful aims at portraying someone as lesser compared to other people, speech that incites actual violence tells you to do something about it.
Me disagreeing with gay marriage (I would never, but let’s entertain that notion) is very different from me saying we need to forcibly imprison homosexuals as criminals.